Responsa for Bava Batra 302:12
והלכתא מתנת שכיב מרע במקצת בעיא קנין ואע"ג דמת מצוה מחמת מיתה לא בעיא קנין והוא דמת עמד חוזר ואף על גב דקנו מיניה
as a bill of divorce is not an object for [symbolic] acquisition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actual delivery of it being required. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> so this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disposal of the maneh. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> also [was not attended by] a symbolic acquisition!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 656, n. 4. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the maneh. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> also [it is a case] of one giving instructions [clearly] on account [of his expectation] of death. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: Elsewhere, an Instruction [given] owing to [the expectation of] death requires [symbolic] acquisition. but the Mishnayoth mentioned refer [to the case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and when those Mishnayoth were taught'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> of one who distributed all his estate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case no symbolic acquisition is required. [The words that follow do not occur in some MSS. and are best left out.] ');"><sup>33</sup></span> for in such a case it was given the same legal force as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they made it'. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> the gift of a dying man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which requires no symbolic acquisition. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> And the law is [that where] a dying man presented a part [of his estate].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a gift … in part'. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> [symbolic] acquisition is required although he [subsequently] died. [If. however] his instructions [concerning the gift] were due to [his expectation of] death, no [symbolic] acquisition is required. This, however, [only] when he died; [if] he recovered he [may] retract even though [symbolic] acquisition from him took place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 656, n. 4 and 5. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If, while making the gift to A, Leah indicated that she was making such a gift in fear of approaching death, then her final words, giving everything to B and C, prevail, since she probably changed her mind regarding her gift to A. A, then, must return the property to B and C. But, if Leah made no mention of death when she gave some of her possessions to A, then such a gift is in the category of a "sick man's gift of part of his property" (Baba Batra 151b) which requires a kinyan (formal act of possession). Since in this case, there was a kinyan (the property was in A's possession at the time of the gift), the property belongs to A.
SOURCES: Cr. 206; Pr. 34; L. 344; Tesh. Maim to Kinyan, 12. Cf. Tur Hoshen Mishpat 250; ibid. Beth Joseph ad. 1.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If, while making the gift to A, Leah indicated that she was making such a gift in fear of approaching death, then her final words, giving everything to B and C, prevail, since she probably changed her mind regarding her gift to A. A, then, must return the property to B and C. But, if Leah made no mention of death when she gave some of her possessions to A, then such a gift is in the category of a "sick man's gift of part of his property" (Baba Batra 151b) which requires a kinyan (formal act of possession). Since in this case, there was a kinyan (the property was in A's possession at the time of the gift), the property belongs to A.
SOURCES: Cr. 206; Pr. 34; L. 344; Tesh. Maim to Kinyan, 12. Cf. Tur Hoshen Mishpat 250; ibid. Beth Joseph ad. 1.